I just got this from the Associated Press that "Pope Benedict XVI intends to return to the old way of distributing Communion at Masses" according to Msgr. Guido Marini.

Benedict's master of liturgical ceremonies said in an interview Wednesday in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the pontiff will place the Communion host in the mouths of the faithful who kneel before him....Benedict gave Communion to kneeling faithful during his trip this month to southern Italy.
The aide, Monsignor Guido Marini, says that distributing Communion the old way helps faithful be devout.

We know how the secular media can get some of the most basic details of the Catholic Church twisted or misinterpret some poor old nun and state that Catholic teaching has changed. So maybe Msgr. Marini may have been interjecting that the Pope will continue to offer Communion to the more pious and devout who choose to receive Communion in the mouth.
Or this could actually be true!(Biretta Tip:PewSitter)

I have been having a wonderful time at my new job these last two months and I have been working with gusto during my initial project. Only now am I recuperating from the long hours so my blogging has suffered. I am truly amazed at many of my peers in the Catholic blogosphere that seem to be able to blog each and every day while having a family and keeping down a job such as Jay and Paul. I am simply amazed and in awe at how these guys and many others are able to juggle their responsibilities and still blog.
I will continue to blog, especially posting my favorite stories of the day in addition to my occasional original posting. My idea for my blog is evolving each and every day but it will still have the same theme to it, an apostolate of news and commentary. For example I want a similar feel such as RealClearPolitics and a similar scope such as American Thinker. The Creative Minority Report, Pro Ecclesia, and Inside Catholic come close to what I am attempting to achieve in scope but with postings of my favorite stories that PewSitter is doing.
This is a lot that I want to accomplish with my simple blog.
I will be updating or changing my background, possibly to a type of blue. If you are curious as to what all that Latin is that I'm using as my background, it is a section of Trajan’s column commemorating him. In addition, I am looking for someone to join my blog. I would like someone who is witty, but yet charitable, in Catholic commentary on the secular or Catholic (or both) worlds.
Anyone interested can contact me at "tito"."benedictus"at"gmail"."com" and recommendations are also appreciated.
God bless you all.

Patrick Lyons of the New York Times wrote a quick story of an exchange of pleasantries between President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI (emphasis mine):
Seven years into his tenure, it will no longer surprise many people to hear that President Bush is not the most formality-minded person ever to hold the office. The irreverent nicknames he makes up for the people around him are legend, and it is not unusual for him to err a bit on the casual side in diplomatic encounter that, in other presidencies, might have been protocol-ed to a fare-thee-well.
Even so, an eyebrow or two arched today at the way Mr. Bush addressed Pope Benedict XVI on meeting him in Rome:
"Your eminence, you’re looking good," Mr. Bush said, the A.P. reported.
We’re not talking about the Fernando-esque second clause, which was unobjectionably friendly if perhaps a tad over-familiar in tone. It was the "your eminence" part. That’s supposed to be how you address Catholic cardinals. Popes are "your holiness."
(It isn't the first time Mr. Bush has put a foot wrong in pontifical etiquette. At a meeting last June, Mr. Bush appalled the Vatican hierarchy and created a small stir in the media by addressing the pope several times as "sir," which was taken by some as a failure to show appropriate respect, though a blunder rather than an intentional slight.)
In any case, the pope evidently did not succumb today to any temptation to respond to Mr. Bush’s errant greeting with a hearty "So are you, Governor."
I've heard many times that His Holiness has a sense of humor, I wonder what was in his mind in order to respond to W's inarticulationizing tone.

Today the Washington Post has an interesting article by Brigid Schulte about Baptist Temple Church of Alexandria, Virginia that recently changing their name to Commonwealth Baptist Church in hopes of reversing a decline in their numbers. The thinking behind this was that 'Temple' had negative connotations arousing images of snake handlers and affiliations with the word 'conservative'. The name 'Baptist' brought a whole host of problems as well since it conjured up the 'Bush' administration and the Religious Right. You see Baptist Temple Church now called Commonwealth Baptist Church is a 'Progressive Community of Faith' as their newly minted moniker states.Ironically the word 'progressive' is a recent creation by liberals to distance themselves from well being called 'liberal'. Commonwealth Baptist Church says they are open to 'gays', blacks, Asians, and converted Jews which seems to them as counter the message of Jesus. They are proud of their history but at the same time don't want to distance themselves from being what they think is their brand of being a 'Baptist', that is progressive or more accurately liberal brand of Baptist.Dear Commonwealth Baptist Church, your problem isn't the name. Because why would you want to distance yourself from a healthy, vibrant, and growing denomination that are the Southern Baptists (despite Brigid Schulte's claim). The problem lies in their theology period. I don't know what they preach but just reading about 'progressive' and 'open' in the Washington Post article I can pretty much discern that they teach a form of Christianity that has adapted to the world around them. A world that glorifies every imaginable sin and denigrates virtues taught by Jesus Himself. They are ultimately diluting the Christian message until it's unrecognizable.We Catholics have the same problem with the leftists, Spirit of Vatican 2 folks, and dissidents within. Repackaging and renaming themselves a 'New Voice' of the Church or 'Call To Action' when essentially all they are are a bunch of cultural Catholics pushing an agenda that is the antithesis of Catholicism altogether.These cultural Catholics will study patristics, theology, holy scripture, encyclicals, and philosophy among others and twist their words to propagate their agenda. They'll cloak themselves with their intellect and education to disguise their true intentions of undermining the authority and teaching of the Magisterium. They'll rename communism to 'democratic socialism' and claim that this can be found in Catholic Social Teaching. They'll belittle good Catholics with sob stories for cheap cover so they themselves will remain immune to criticism if their own profane teachings be challenged.Well here's a rule of thumb, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck and not a swan.According to the Book of the Prophet Isaiah it states: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter (Isaiah 5:20)!The new Commonwealth Baptist Church may fool some people, but they can't fool most people all the time. The same goes to cultural Catholics and their agenda to pervert Catholic teaching and lead others astray. Because whoever causes other Catholics who believe in Jesus to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea so says Jesus Himself (cf. Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew 18:6)Go ahead and change your name, in the eyes of the Lord He knows what is in your hearts no matter how you repackage yourselves.To read the original article click here.(Biretta Tip: Lucianne)

I just finished viewing Adam Sandler's latest comedy, 'You Don't Mess With The Zohan'. Where an Israeli super agent, Zohan, leaves the service of his country to pursue his dream of being a hairstylist in New York city. I was expecting the subtle homosexual agenda that his recent films have pushed but there wasn't any obvious promotion of it in this film. It was a pretty funny film, although it could have done without the heavy sexual innuendo and nudity, but that's what I expected of an Adam Sandler film.The film entertained with Mr. Sandler's off the wall comedy while delicately dancing around the minefield of Middle East politics. The always funny Rob Schneider plays a hard working Palestinian New York city cab driver only to accidentally discover that Israel's super agent is a hair stylist in one of New York's newly famous hair salon--no thanks to Zohan himself. After this discovery the film rolls through all the funny caricatures you can extricate from middle-eastern stereotypes. It was equally offensive all the way around.It ends with a happy note of course.Two scenes from the film stick out that clearly were over the line and subtly offensive enough to point out, which is an understatement. The first of the lesser of two evils was the denigration of McCain and Obama's wives with repugnant sexual innuendo and of course throw in Chelsea and Hilary while you're at it. Say what you will about their politics, but that was clearly offensive and over the line. I do understand what Adam Sandler was aiming for, but this one was a bit too much and very unnecessary.The Second and the most offensive of the two scenes was the films villain element that would bring the two communities of Israeli and Palestinian New Yorkers together, Rednecks and Mel Gibson. The cheap Mel Gibson jokes were well enough within bounds, but painting roughly 20% of Americans by playing up an old stereotype of southerners driving around with gun racks and the stars and bars blazoned on their pickups was pretty mean-spirited. Adam Sandler ingeniously painted a large chunk of conservatives and Republicans with a wide enough brush to create as his villains.Maybe I'm a little sensitive, maybe Mr. Sandler went a bit over the line. Though he could have chosen some other obscure group to act as the villain in his film, I don't know, maybe skinheads? Probably the comedic appeal of Rednecks was too much for Mr. Sandler to resist poking fun at. During the film I noticed a couple of people leaving the movie theater, which was a bit surprising, but I thought about it and I realized that even I had been desensitized by the film itself on it's portrayal of 'red' America.In the end it's only a movie. A movie I had a difficult time resisting to watch because I'm a big Happy Gilmore fan and I was hoping to see that Mr. Sandler would have hit my funny bone once again. I know one thing for sure, I just watched my very last Adam Sandler film.UPDATED: I was pretty hard on Mr. Sandler and I may still watch some of his films that don't promote anti-Americanism and are counter to Christian values. But I won't retreat from calling him out when he does his "social" agenda films again. I'm sure he is a good guy, but his films are overtly anti-American and promote the homosexual agenda of sexual license which we as Americans don't need or want.